Faculty Senate Minutes: 5/21/97

FOR THE RECORD

Faculty Senate Report

(continued)

Professor Perry (Philosophy) stated that he would like to strike
the first sentence of C.2 (page 3) on the grounds that it states
poorly what the earlier introductory sentence of Section C states
better and more flexibly. With the Chair reminding Perry that no
formal amendments were permitted in "Stage One," Professor Efron
(Statistics) urged that the Senate not begin amending such a
complicated document on the floor. Bratman further clarified that
straw votes were allowed in "Stage One," but that a technical
problem seemed to prevent taking straw votes on the same day as a
final vote on the main motion, though another parliamentary
procedure could be used to accomplish this purpose.

It was moved (Perry) and seconded (Bravman) that the Senate
proceed from "Stage One" to "Stage Two" deliberations on the
proposed changes to the Area One legislation. The motion carried by
a divided voice vote."

McCall drew attention to two areas "that the Senate, on
intellectual and pedagogic grounds, ought to be aware of as we
proceed." First, he noted that Elam had eloquently illustrated "one
of the deepest ongoing divisions amongst humanistic scholars," that
is, focus on the text versus focus on methodology. "That humanistic
debate will never subside," McCall said, but to his mind
underscores the need for the Senate to hear the strengths and
weaknesses of different models at the end of the transition period.
The second pedagogic issue upon which "the jury is still out,"
McCall said, is whether it is necessarily best for all first
quarter courses to be team-taught. If too many CIV texts produced a
"snippet" problem, "in a pedagogic way this runs the danger of the
snippet approach to Stanford faculty," he joked.

Professor Chu (Physics) proposed that everyone think very
carefully about limiting the number of amendments, since "we can't
anticipate all the problems now" and should not try to fix things
until there had been some experience with the program.

Perry, advised that Fernald would need to consult C-US before
considering the elimination of the first sentence of Section C.2 on
page 3 as a friendly amendment, made a formal motion to that
effect. He agreed that it was unwise to amend frequently, but
maintained that this particular problem was a red flag that could
and should be corrected. "I don't think there's a 'methodology' in
Philosophy ... and I wouldn't want to be charged with having to
teach [it]," he stated. Professor Chaffee opposed the amendment as
unnecessary and unwise. Bender asked whether Perry would prefer
"methods of inquiry" to "methodologies," underscoring however the
important distinction between a methods-oriented first quarter and
a more sequential, specifically-disciplinary, inter-textual
oriented Winter/Spring sequence. The question was called, and
Perry's amendment failed on a divided voice vote. Efron, indicating
that he had some sympathy with Perry's proposal but had not wanted
to encourage a series of amendments, asked whether straw votes were
still possible. The Chair indicated that the Senate could go into a
Quasi-Committee of the Whole for that purpose.

Professor White (Mathematics) asked why students were required
to take specific Area One courses, taught in a specific way, rather
than selecting from a variety of courses to fulfill a humanities
requirement. Fernald stressed that the Area One requirement was
especially designed for freshmen, incorporating for example small
discussion sections and a focus on writing. Professor Taylor
(Economics), a member of C-US, reminded White that the revised
legislation contains quite a bit more choice for students as they
move out of the first quarter. He said that he would like to see "a
kind of matrix of methodologies, or themes, intersecting with
different texts." Speaking from the perspective of the only
engineer or scientist on the CIV Review Committee, Bravman stated
that he firmly believes "that the study of humanities remains at
the core of an undergraduate education at a great research
university." He voiced the opinion that the needs of 17- and
18-year old students must drive the Area One requirement, not a
focus on humanities as a discipline.